by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I'm still waiting for pseudo-scholar to explain why the scripture in Genesis is not linked to either Daniel or Luke. After all, it uses the words "seven times" and according to scholar, using the same word in two different verses is all the proof needed to link the two together:
At this Jehovah said to him: "For that reason anyone killing Cain must suffer vengeance seven times
Mary
Post 10739
I was simply asked for names of non JW scholars who have supported the 607 date and not all of those are living today I thought that the list of names was sufficient. You make much derisory comment about the fact that the scholars that I listed were not genuine or academic scholars but I need to remind you that you are not a scholar and neither is Carl Jonsson.
If it is the case that scholar is unable to name current non JW scholars who support 607 BCE then so what because scholar cares naught about the matter for it is more important to be onside with the Greatest Scholar of all and that is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe.
scholar JW
pseudo scholar sounds bitter that the WT scholars he celebrates turned out to be, like himself, pseudo LOL
scholar is very proud to be on the same team as a bunch of dead pyramidologists. Heap them with praise, scholar! "Quack, quack, quack!"
Jehovah has preserved enough evidence for all thinking people to conclude that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BC. But for a duck like "scholar" it's more vital to continue twisting scriptures to his own ruination.
Perhaps the Flat Earth Society can help you convince the entire world that Jesus died on a pole rather than a cross?
You make much derisory comment about the fact that the scholars that I listed were not genuine or academic scholars but I need to remind you that you are not a scholar and neither is Carl Jonsson.
Actually Websters defines 'scholar' as such:
1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2 a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field b: a learned person
3: a holder of a scholarship
Going by definition number 2, that would make anyone who has done advanced study in the subject of 607 vs 586/587 a scholar. The room just got a lot more crowded...and you stand alone in supporting 607.
If it is the case that scholar is unable to name current non JW scholars who support 607 BCE then so what because scholar cares naught about the matter for it is more important to be onside with the Greatest Scholar of all and that is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe.
Oh well,...I guess that settles it then...
This is a summary written by Alan Feurbacher years ago. I think, I think, an excellent beginning response to the Society's nonsensical teachings:
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-summary.html
The November 1, 1986 Watchtower stated on page 6 that "in 1981 Jehovah's Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. ('Let Your Kingdom Come,' pages 127-40, 186-9)" This book, which we will refer to as KC, used secular historical evidence to establish the key date of the Society's chronology: "Historians calculate that Babylon fell in early October of the year 539 B.C.E." (p. 136). Nevertheless, the book set up a dichotomy between "secular records" and the Bible:
Thankful, indeed, we can be that Jehovah preserved in his inspired Word an accurate picture of the needed details involving the Jews, the Babylonians and the Medo-Persians in the sixth century B.C.E. Otherwise it would be difficult to piece together the exact timing of events back there, for secular records of that period are certainly incomplete. However, based primarily on such secular records, some persons figure that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E and that the Jews came under Babylonian domination in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, which they calculate as being 605 B.C.E. [p. 138]
A footnote referred the reader to an appendix on pages 186-9. We will spend some time on the arguments presented in this "Appendix," and we will show that the evidence the Society presents is biased, incomplete and misrepresentative of the facts. The following list of evidences is an outline of what is available to prove that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C. The symbol (KC) means the line of evidence is mentioned in the Appendix.
1. Chronicles, historical records, and royal inscriptions from the Neo-Babylonian period, beginning with the reign of Nabopolassar and ending with the reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, show it ran from 626 to 539 B.C., not from 645 to 539 B.C. as the Society claims.
a. (KC) Berossus
b. (KC) Ptolemy
c. Various Babylonian chronicles (incomplete) such as the Nabonidus Chronicle
d. Nabonidus No. 18
e. The Hillah stele, Nabonidus No. 8
f. (KC) The Adda-Guppi stele, Nabonidus H1,B
2. Business and administrative documents.
a. (KC) Tablets exist that are dated from each year of the Neo-Babylonian period as established by Berossus, Ptolemy and contemporary stele; no tablets are inconsistently dated. About 5000 have been published out of a total of about 50,000. These are contemporary documents from the Neo-Babylonian period.
3. Astronomical diaries.
a. (KC) VAT 4956 fixes the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 B.C. by a unique set of astronomical observations, establishing his accession year in 605 B.C.
b. BM 32312 plus the Akitu Chronicle pin the 16th year of Shamashshumukin (a Babylonian king before the Neo-Babylonian period) to 652/1 B.C. This, combined with business documents, Ptolemy's canon, the Akitu Chronicle and the Uruk King List combine to date Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 605/4-562/1, with his 18th (destruction of Jerusalem, Jer. 52:28-30) year in 587/6 B.C.
4. Saros (lunar eclipse) texts.
a. Four independent texts provide absolute dates within the Neo-Babylonian period. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is fixed at 587/6 B.C.
5. Synchronisms with contemporary Egyptian chronology show Watchtower chronology consistently off by 20 years.
a. Josiah died during Pharaoh Nechoh's reign, which began in 610 B.C. The Society dates Josiah's death to 629 B.C.
b. Some Jews fled to Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) immediately after Jerusalem's destruction. Since he began to reign in 589 B.C., Jerusalem could not have been destroyed in 607 B.C.
c. A fragmentary cuneiform text mentions a battle by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year against Pharaoh Amasis, who began to rule in 570 B.C. The Society claims Nebuchadnezzar died in 582 B.C.
Let Your Kingdom Come discounts all the above evidence, saying on p. 187:
.... even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
This shows that the Society recognizes there is almost no historical evidence supporting the 607 date -- otherwise they would present it and not resort to the lame argument that "people make mistakes, so we're not convinced." A chronology that has to be based on "yet undiscovered material," because it is demolished by the discovered material, is resting on a weak foundation. If an idea, refuted by an overwhelming mass of discovered evidence, is to be retained based on "yet undiscovered material" that might support it, all ideas, however false, could be retained on the same principle. But it should be remembered that such a faith is not founded upon "the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld"; it is founded upon wishful thinking. Let Your Kingdom Come says that its arguments rest on solid Biblical evidence, so that secular chronology must be rejected. We will examine this claim at length.
Under the subjects "Chronology," "Nebuchadnezzar," "Jehoiakim," "Jehoiachin" and "Captivity," in both the Insight book, and the Aid book upon which it is based, no historical evidence from the Neo-Babylonian period is presented showing that the 607 B.C. date for Jerusalem's destruction is valid. Instead, much space is devoted to trying to weaken the credibility of the historical and archeological evidence.
In the Babylon book, the historical evidence is even blatantly misrepresented. On page 134 the book says:
Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem the second time, to punish the rebel king [Jehoiakim]. That was in 618 B.C. -- See Harper's Bible Dictionary, by M. S. and J. L. Miller, edition of 1952, page 306, under "Jehoiakim."
However, Harper's Bible Dictionary actually says that Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years, from 609-598 B.C., and that
Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled with the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24:1), whom Jehoiakim served three years, but against whom he at length rebelled. The might of Chaldea, pressed heavily against the capital and the king died or possibly was assassinated (II Kings 24:6). He was succeeded (598 B.C.) by his young son Jehoiachin, who in his father's stead was carried captive to Babylon (597 B.C., II Kings 24:15), while Zedekiah, brother of Jehoiakim, became Nebuchadnezzar's puppet ruler.
The only evidence Let Your Kingdom Come presents are two excerpts from Josephus and one from the 2nd century writer Theophilus, both of which can be demonstrated to have presented, not valid historical information based an contemporary Neo-Babylonian documents, but their own interpretations of the Bible. One of Josephus's statements is even contradicted later in his works by one that directly supports 587 B.C. as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
The Society's chronology rests on 539 B.C., the date of Babylon's fall (see Appendix B). If all the objections raised by Let Your Kingdom Come are valid, what reason do we have for accepting any date at all from the Neo-Babylonian era established by historians -- in particular 539 B.C.? If 587 is rejected then 539 must be rejected too. The August 15, 1968 Watchtower said (p. 490-1) concerning Cyrus's overthrow of Babylon:
The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document known as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle.... Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars.... Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great.
Then are listed many other authorities that confirm the 539 date. All these references also list 587/6 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem, but the article makes no mention of this. Further, pp. 493-4 says of the date 537 B.C., when Cyrus issued his decree permitting the Jews to return to their homeland:
This date.... according to the best astronomical tables available, [footnote: Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, (1956) Parker and Dubberstein, p.29] is calculated to be October 5 (Julian) or September 29 (Gregorian) 537 B.C.E. -- Ezra 1:1-4; 3:1-6.
Similarly, Insight, Vol. 1, p. 453, says:
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II:.... [lunar eclipses are described].... These two lunar eclipses can be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E..... Thus, this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
Similarly, Let Your Kingdom Come states on p. 186: "Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus's army in October 539 B.C.E."
See Appendix B for an extended discussion. Note that the above calculations rely on:
1. Information in a clay tablet, the Nabonidus Chronicle.
2. Astronomical calculations.
3. Business tablets dated to Cyrus's 9th year.
4. The information in various secular historical books.
But both Let Your Kingdom Come and Insight (pp. 448-50, 454-6) reject all these methods of calculating historical dates when they point to the conclusion that Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C., not 607 B.C. What manner of scholarship and reasoning is this?
(For a more thorough examination of these issues, see The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson.)
I have read this before. AlanF presents this very logically in response to the WT's assertions that are hardly logical.
Carl's books has SO MUCH evidence that I don't see how anyone can read it and NOT see that the WT adherence to 607 BC is just dogmatic and has zero to do with evidence.
This is the first thing that opened my eyes. I was always OK with "imperfect men" at a congregational level. Even "imperfect men" at headquarters. But when I saw the intellectual DISHONESTY of the Org. I began to question everything and see the other misquotes, false prophecies, obvious alterations of scriptures in the NWT, ... etc.. When I asked questions about these things I was ignored cpmpletely. I received a letter from the branch saying they were too busy with "important" work to do the research to answer my questions. Now I'm too busy with my important work to go to their meetings or give another dime to their worldwide work.
allelsefails:
Would you mind posting a scanned copy of the branch's letter (edited to remove your name, of course)? I have seen (very recently) other letters from the branch that try to hide the issue and threaten the individual on the chronology issue. Perhaps they are changing some tactics. PM me if you wish.
